[gecode-users] Problem with rev13418 performances

[Mohamed Rezgui]

Hi,

I tried also with cmake in 3.7.3 compilation and I have the same thing.
So, in your opinion, is it better to remove some instances in my benchmarks
or to use 3.7.3 version ?

Best Regards,
Mohamed REZGUI

2013/2/26 Christian Schulte <cschulte at kth.se>

> Hi,****
>
> ** **
>
> I just tried myself and there is indeed a big bug somewhere. It appears to
> be in the flatzinc stuff and not only due to the branching, one can see
> that by the difference in number of nodes explored per second (it looks it
> also has a memory leak of epic proportions and prints random messages on
> the screen). I checked the base Gecode stuff and there everything is fine,
> the trunk is in most cases slightly faster.****
>
> ** **
>
> But as said, it’s the trunk ;-)****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers****
>
> Christian****
>
> ** **
>
> --****
>
> Christian Schulte, www.ict.kth.se/~cschulte/****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Mohamed Rezgui [mailto:kyo.alone at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 26, 2013 7:49 PM
> *To:* victor.zverovich at gmail.com
> *Cc:* cschulte at kth.se; users at gecode.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gecode-users] Problem with rev13418 performances****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi Victor,****
>
> ** **
>
> thank you, I dit it but no speed up come. As Christian Schulte says : it
> rather the default strategy is bad.****
>
> I hope the new version (4.0) comes soon ^^.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thank you for your attention ^^****
>
> Best regards,****
>
> Mohamed REZGUI****
>
> ** **
>
> 2013/2/26 victor.zverovich at gmail.com <victor.zverovich at gmail.com>****
>
> CMake supports different build types, make sure that you use the Release
> one to enable optimizations and disable asserts and debug info. You can do
> it at configuration time with the following command:****
>
> ** **
>
>   cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release****
>
> ** **
>
> HTH,****
>
> Victor****
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Mohamed Rezgui <kyo.alone at gmail.com>
> wrote:****
>
> OK so I will work with gecode 3.7.3. ****
>
> ** **
>
> I just compile the revision with cmake and I use gecode 3.7.3 from
> download section of the official website.  ****
>
> I will see the flags used in compilation. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Thank you for all ^^****
>
> Best Regards,****
>
> Mohamed REZGUI****
>
> ** **
>
> 2013/2/26 Christian Schulte <cschulte at kth.se>****
>
> That's what happens when you use the trunk, you should never, because,
> yes, it is the trunk and not a release ;-)****
>
>  ****
>
> The difference is easy to explain though. The instance you have chosen
> does not have a search annotation in it, so Gecode picks some default
> search (which for this type of problems is a desaster anyway). And we just
> changed the default search behavior for the upcoming Gecode 4.****
>
>  ****
>
> But then there is another observation: Did you compile both versions with
> exactly the same flags? I doubt. Please check this.****
>
>  ****
>
> Christian****
>
>  ****
>
> --****
>
> Christian Schulte, Professor of Computer Science, KTH,
> www.ict.kth.se/~cschulte/****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* users-bounces at gecode.org [mailto:users-bounces at gecode.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Mohamed Rezgui
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 26, 2013 3:31 PM
> *To:* users at gecode.org
> *Subject:* [gecode-users] Problem with rev13418 performances****
>
>  ****
>
> Hi, ****
>
>  ****
>
> I made benchmark with the attached instance
> (2DLevelPacking_Class5_20_6.fzn) from the minizinc challenges with the
> latest version of gecode revision 13418 in release mode.****
>
>  ****
>
> When I compare performances between this version and the 3.7.3 version of
> gecode, I am so surprised !!!.****
>
> Gecode 3.7.3 is faster than the latest revision !!!****
>
>  ****
>
> I just use the parameter -s for stats :****
>
> ---> gecode/bin/fz -s 2DLevelPacking_Class5_20_6.fzn****
>
>  ****
>
> Use of E7-4870 Intel processor****
>
>  ****
>
> Benchmarks with gecode rev13418 :****
>
>  ****
>
> %%  runtime:       2594.74 (2594737 ms)****
>
> %%  solvetime:     2594.72 (2594718 ms)****
>
> %%  workers:     1****
>
> %%  type search:     bab****
>
> %%  solutions:     1****
>
> %%  objective:     9****
>
> %%  variables:     801****
>
> %%  propagators:   70****
>
> %%  propagations:  22306041****
>
> %%  nodes:         1564742****
>
> %%  failures:      702986****
>
> %%  restarts:      0****
>
> %%  peak depth:    51****
>
> %%  peak memory:   838 KB****
>
>  ****
>
> Benchmarks with gecode 3.7.3 :****
>
> %%  runtime:       32.394 (32394.264 ms)****
>
> %%  solvetime:     32.384 (32384.895 ms)****
>
> %%  workers:     1****
>
> %%  type search:     bab****
>
> %%  solutions:     1****
>
> %%  variables:     801****
>
> %%  objective:     9****
>
> %%  propagators:   70****
>
> %%  propagations:  23159635****
>
> %%  nodes:         3114256****
>
> %%  failures:      1557118****
>
> %%  peak depth:    53****
>
> %%  peak memory:   2831 KB****
>
>  ****
>
> Can you help me about that ???****
>
> Is it better that I work with 3.7.3 version ??? ****
>
> Thank you for your attention.****
>
>  ****
>
> --
> Best Regards,****
>
> Mohamed REZGUI****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gecode users mailing list
> users at gecode.org
> https://www.gecode.org/mailman/listinfo/gecode-users****
>
> ** **
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Cordialement,****
>
> Mohamed REZGUI****
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gecode.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20130226/bb8bc825/attachment.html>